Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---x86 code is a liar?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vgtbpd$12ji4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <b24e957b9f2af15c0ba7f18a3f7bfe2c6ff6419d@i2pn2.org>
 <vgegce$1phg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <e36afcb3758e0fb26d58019c08a24c6df0b562a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vgenp1$1uh1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <acecb0ba68d86b00c95fae1ecf690ec514aee26b@i2pn2.org>
 <vgfq86$24mon$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7a092c593ad1431a1bf6589d0102312545612ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vghb16$2ge1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <e51f21daadd358ef13801c918106c2fdc65a9f6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vghe3p$2gr3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4cb98b3918d6745f53bb19582b59e786d4af5022@i2pn2.org>
 <vghgar$2h30o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e40629600e317dba47dd3d066d83899fa7b8a7ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vgiq1d$2nkqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <e84328012ce8d1e75b9b569f15f74fde315a0548@i2pn2.org>
 <vgjd2f$2qdc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <4654d9db2fa0906d7ab7a1c6c09139ab0b0110cd@i2pn2.org>
 <vgl7vl$37h38$4@dont-email.me> <vgnph1$3qcpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgns0o$3qq7s$1@dont-email.me> <vgsnod$upmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgt61q$11e5a$3@dont-email.me>
 <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:35:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caa393ed49c937630dd8ea795c5bbe8f";
	logging-data="1134148"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f4nKncjoJA3e8Hw4g2MUU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GTBqLtxgykFLhRnik6+2qKazZ34=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241111-0, 11/10/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <4eebe767dc236a7770566fc1593aae14a38cb085@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4894

On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>> There <is> a key distinguishing difference in the behavior of DDD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 or directly executed. It
>>>>>>>> is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore this for three f-cking
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>> That difference is not due to DDD.
>>>>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD
>>>>>> unequivocally entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state.
>>>>> No, it does not. You might say that the semantic property of the
>>>>> finite string "Olcott is an idiot" unequvocally entails that Olcott
>>>>> is an idiot but it does not.
>>>> The semantic property of the finite string pair: HHH/DDD unequivocally
>>>> entails that DDD never reaches its final halt state WITHIN THE
>>>> SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>> The expression "The semantic property" is incorrect when it is not
>>> clear from context which semantic property is meant. Note that a string
>>> per se does not have semantic properties, they all come from
>>> interpretrations.
>> That you pretend to not understand my clear words does not mean that my
>> words are not clear.
> Sigh. Mikko didn’t write anything about not understanding. Also, way to
> blame the receiver for bad communication.
> 
>> The fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship with HHH cannot be
>> simply ignored and must be accounted for.
> Same as any other kind of relationship.
> 
>> The actual computation itself
>> does involve HHH emulating itself emulating DDD. To simply pretend that
>> this does not occur seems dishonest.
> Which is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other HHH
> that doesn’t abort. 

DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction
final halt state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
HOW STUPID CAN POSSIBLY YOU BE?
WHEN I CORRECT YOU DOZENS OF TIMES YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE.

> But the HHH that simulates DDD does in fact abort
> and not simulate itself aborting.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer